DHARMESH HIRABHAI PATEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MA /99/2014, MA/100/2014, MA/101/2014, MA/102/2014 and MA/103/2014 for condonation of delay are allowed in the interest of justice and in view of the circumstance that the applicants being not in employment could not approach legal assistance in time due to financial difficulties. OA/252/2012, OA/260/2012, OA/261/2012, OA/266/2012 and OA/269/2012 were heard together and were disposed of by way of a common order dated 06 -9 -2013. The applicants in the aforesaid OAs had been challenging the notices of termination issued against them under Rule 8(1) of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. This Tribunal found that the termination orders in each of these cases were not in any way punitive or stigmatic to the applicants. Hence the said orders issued by the respondents were upheld and accordingly the OAs were dismissed.

(2.) NOW in the present RAs the applicants contend that there was mala fide exercise of power on the part of the respondents. It is further stated that the learned Counsel had argued that Rule 8 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 cannot be made applicable in the present cases and that since no reason is stated by the authority, natural justice and fair play demands that the order of termination has to be treated as punitive in nature. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if the motive is to terminate, then order of termination is punitive. The applicants therefore seek review of the aforementioned order of this Tribunal.

(3.) IT can be seen that the review applicants have not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record. They are stating certain legal arguments, which have already been adverted to by this Tribunal. If the applicants have to re -agitate the said arguments regarding the legal position of 'termination simpliciter', a decision thereon would involve a substantial amount of reasoning. Such a process does not come within the scope of review. In the light of the principles laid down in Kamal Sengupta's case (supra), we are not inclined to allow these R.As. as the grounds stated do not come within the scope of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act.